Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 24, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

 Triple Town  devs on finding the fun in free-to-play game design
Triple Town devs on finding the fun in free-to-play game design Exclusive
March 25, 2013 | By Patrick Miller

What's the key to Spry Fox's (Triple Town, Realm of the Mad God) free-to-play success? In a session from GDC's free-to-play summit today, David Edery, Daniel Cook, and Ryan Williams suggested that devs need to focus on prototyping early and often in order to refine ideas that can yield online games that will last for years.

Finding the fun -- quickly

"Finding the fun, for the successful games that we've made, historically doesn't take very long -- a few weeks, a month, two months tops," said Edery while discussing a failed prototype. "We spent six months banging our heads against a wall even though the warning sides were there. We should have set a timer, but we didn't, because we were so enamored with the [core mechanic]. Falling in love with your ideas can definitely hurt you the most."

Cook explained: "We're looking for a core, tight, robust mechanic that we can explore for years and years on end. What we're doing is we're sending ships out into an empty ocean, looking for land. Sometimes you find a little island, and sometimes you find a giant continent of gameplay. We're making games as services, and they have to last for years. What you need is something that people can engage in for hours every week, for years on end, and keep it fresh and changing as it goes. So when we say you have to prototype until is fun, what we want is this rich, robust world of fun."

Working with tech and tools that facilitate rapid prototyping is key to their iteration speed, Edery said. "We tend to be highly intolerant of any terms of tech setup that slows down your short-term. We need to be iterating on a daily basis. We don't need to invest in tech that will pay off later on; we've found that we can get those benefits later on when we need it. So we usually work in environments like Unity and Flash. It does not take an amazing engine that you've crafted for ten months to make a game that others can enjoy."

Cook identified three rules of thumb that he used to identify potentially successful game ideas: Momentum ("Is the fun increasing from iteration to iteration, month to month?"), size of playspace ("How do we add stuff?"), and the robustness of the fun ("You could spend a week making it horrible on purpose, and it'd still be fun").

Broad game design potential = broad monetization potential

Once you've iterated your way to a promising game concept, you need to see if it's the kind of thing that will actually make you money. Edery used Triple Town as an example: "One of the risks when you use a process like ours is, you'll come up with a game that's really deep and enjoyable, but it doesn't really make any money after people have played for hundreds of hours. This has happened to us two or three times by now. Lots of people make the assumption that [Triple Town] is a masterful financial success, and it's not. Our revenues tend to top out to 4, 5, 6, 7 bucks per person...The joy of the game comes from doing better without paying. Usually, the reason you purchase performance is because you're showing off to other people [in multiplayer]."

"In this regard, Triple Town is a shallow experience. It has one thing going for it, and that one thing is not something that makes you want to spend money," Edery said. "If you can come up with three or four categories of things that people might wanna buy, you're probably okay. But with Triple Town, we didn't ask ourselves that question in the beginning."

"When we tried to add them to the game later," Cook added, "the design was already so tight and functional that it just didn't make sense. Single player games are our vanity projects now. We don't expect them to make money."

Release early

Edery attributed some of Spry Fox's f2p success with their willingness to release a game earlier in the dev cycle than competing studios would feel comfortable -- almost as an extension of the prototyping process. "You always learn more when you put it in front of a natural population of users, just playing it on their own," Edery said. "We release our games six months to a year earlier than our competitors would. We'll release in Canada, first."

Bring art in late

The rapid prototyping phase is not the right time to become emotionally invested in a concept -- and bringing well-developed art assets in early made it hard to maintain the necessary distance. "Once you've seen the art, it's like a sugar rush," Cook said, "This is what the game's going to be about! But it doesn't work so well. It kind of destroys the whole prototyping process. The artist was making a lot of cool stuff on a regular basis, and we thought we were making a lot of progress. But every day, we had a choice between thinking, 'Ooh, we're doing good because the art looks good, let's talk about how to make that happen,' and the hard, grueling mathematics and abstract structure of the game design. And each time these two butted heads, the art tended to win. Art creates emotional investment, and you don't need that in the prototyping phase. Now we prototype in a crude fashion, and think, if it's fun when it's crude, it'll be more fun with those emotional hooks."

For Gamasutra's full GDC 2013 event coverage this week, check out the official GDC 2013 event page.

Related Jobs

Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — Prague, Czech Republic

Game Designer
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Level Designer
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States

Tools Programmer-Central Team
Crystal Dynamics
Crystal Dynamics — Redwood City, California, United States

Senior/Lead VFX Artist


Erin OConnor
profile image
Great game design is great game design regardless if the end product is free to play or pay to play.

MAYBE more game developers should focus on making games great rather than how they can nickle and dime players.

scott stevens
profile image
It's not about "nickel and dime(ing) players" - it's about creating a great game that makes enough of a profit so that you can create another great game. Game Developers need to eat, pay rent, buy their kids shoes, and everything else.

Alan Boody
profile image
I agree, Scott, developers need to make money to make a living and make another game. But, there are still game developers who design games as a nickel & dime scheme, first. Their design is based upon pay walls instead of good game design.

The best chance of making money from a game is making a good game. Sure, some luck is involved, but if you're in this industry to make money first then you're no better than EA.

Paul Boyle
profile image
Totally agree with this article. Especially about not making the art look nice for a demo, and not creating emotional investment regardless of game mechanics. It doesn't feel like this works at most companies though. usually, you're trying to sell your team/business people/studio management on a game with the demo. even if it was orginally intended as an internal test. I saw this happen big time on Spore (yes those

The prototypes that ended up being made into game play where the ones that had the nicest touchy-feely UI, or prettiest graphics (even though they were programmer code). We had the advantage of massive amounts of time to prototype and test, but the gameplay still fell down in the end.